Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 26 Nov 2009 19:16 On Nov 26, 12:26 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:23:12 +1300) it happened Malcolm Moore > <abor1953nee...(a)yahoodagger.co.nz> wrote in > <cphrg5d3en3gdci010svovfv5l83p6h...(a)4ax.com>: > > >On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:25:27 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > >wrote: > > >>On Nov 25, 7:59 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: <snip> > >Shame about all those wasted calculations you went through. > >Bill's post was authoritative. > > Billie's post was a reply to mine, and was total bull. Jan Panteltje has strange ideas about what constituties total bull. > Billy seems to think storing CO2 under your bed will stop natural climate cycles. Quite wrong. I know that not "storing CO2 under your bed" has stopped one natural climate cycle. The next ice age, due to happen any millenium now, has been put on hold by the anthropogenic global warming that we have managed so far. I also know that we can't store enough CO2 under our collective beds to avoid more serious anthropogenic global warming if we continue to dig up and burn fossil carbon at the current rate, but we may be able to store enough to prevent serious warming before we build enough windmills and sloar power plants to replace most of our current energy sources. > Billy is a very confused, mislead by Al Gore, human being. Given the strange and irrational ideas that Jan Panteltje endorses, I'd be quite worried if he didn't think that I was confused. One of his silly ideas is that I get my ideas about global warming from Al Gore. I've had enough scientific training to be able to get my ideas about anthropogenic global warming from rather closer to the scientific sources. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/ > Quoting out of context from one of his text may mentally hurt you. Finding out that you have been talking nonsense can be damaging to the ego. Jan Panteltje's ego seems to have been protecting itself from this damaging revelation for quite some time now. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Malcolm Moore on 26 Nov 2009 19:32 On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:25:05 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Nov 25, 11:32 pm, Malcolm Moore <abor1953nee...(a)yahoodagger.co.nz> >wrote: >> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:00:13 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Nov 25, 7:23 pm, Malcolm Moore <abor1953nee...(a)yahoodagger.co.nz> >> >wrote: >> >> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:25:27 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >On Nov 25, 7:59 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >> The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear >> >> >> reactors and yet you claimed >> >> >> >> > >> Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies, >> >> >> > >> there would be no media, no energy, >> >> >> >> Just admit you have no clue and are wrong. >> >> >> >Okay boys and girls, FWIW let's whip out the calculator and fact-check >> >> >the authoritative Mr. Bill: >> snip wasted calculations and earlier comment. >Let's dig through and re-create that conversation, shall we? That's a good idea, but let's paste it in sequence; <Begin quote> On Nov 25, 12:12�pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:03:18 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > <e8d9dfe9-9805-4503-bd9a-662f0098c...(a)v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>: > > > >On Nov 24, 1:25�pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On a sunny day (Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:43:51 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sl= > >oman > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in > >> <be3e96e1-68fd-4366-b23d-5c7f15549...(a)t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>: <Bill wrote> > >> >The enthusiasm of Exxon-Mobil and similar fossil-carbon extraction > >> >companies for filling the media with anti-scientific propaganda aimed > >> >at blocking the changes to our civilisation that will be needed to > >> >prevent it's collapse (and the consequent population implosion) does > >> >imply that there are a lot of rich people around exhibiting a rather > >> >dangerous form pf psychopathic short-term self-interest. <Jan wrote> > >> Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies, > >> there would be no media, no energy, and no way to spread the ideas origin= > >> ating from your overheated globe. <Bill wrote> > >BP and Shell both have the sense to acknowledge that anthropogenic > >global warming is real and both have started diversifying into more > >sustainable activities. > > >You don't seem to have realised the burning fossil carbon isn't the > >only way to generate energy. <Jan wrote> > You really are beginning to sound like an idiot nut case. > After all the case I made here for nuclear power. <Bill wrote> The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear reactors and yet you claimed > >> Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies, > >> there would be no media, no energy, Just admit you have no clue and are wrong. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen <End quote> >Here's Bill, quoting Jan: > >> >> >> The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear >> >> >> reactors and yet you claimed >> >> >> >> > >> Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies, >> >> >> > >> there would be no media, no energy, > >To which Jan replied, reiterating his point that civilization was >founded and still largely dependent on fossil fuels: > > > "Without the [fossile] energy companies there would be no media, > no energy, as your car does not run on electricity (yet). > Without those machines, used to build cities, roads, transport > goods, there would be no civilisation and not even internet, and > no printing material, no paper, some paper manufacturers have > their own power plants. Been there." > But completely irrelevant to your "fact check" of the French nuclear claims. >> If you look at the subject for this thread you'll hopefully realise >> your claim to have brought it back on point is complete nonsense. And >> who appointed you thread controller of sed! > >Oh I just meant to bring Bill back to Jan's immediate point, of our >dependence on fossil fuels. As much as I admire France's nuclear >power and think we should do more of that, it's not a panacea--even >France is still critically dependent on fossil fuel, and I wanted to >know how dependent. So I added it up. ~82% from fossil fuel. No, you wanted to show Bill was wrong. That's why you wrote "let's whip out the calculator and fact-check the authoritative Mr. Bill" So far we've heard you were fact checking, then it was bringing Bill back on topic, and now it's "I wanted to know how dependent. So I added it up." Hmmm. >But I'm not foolish enough to try keeping Bill on any sort of topic-- >that's like herding fish. Why didn't you attempt to bring Jan back on topic? He was the first in the thread to move away from the subject line when he mentioned proposals to store CO2 underground near where he lives. >The thread topic was about a bunch of AGW promoters being caught >lying, manipulating data, conspiring against competitors, and so >forth. Bill didn't like that topic, so he raised a fuss and a bunch >of strawmen so we'd all talk about something else. Standard operating >procedure. No, Bill responded to Jan's concerns about living above a CO2 store. Subsequently the thread diverged into the usual wide ranging stuff. If you can't handle that you'll need to leave usenet :-) There's still the matter of why you claimed to be fact checking Bill's nuclear claims when you were apparently really trying to bring him back on topic. I guess you also have trouble comprehending your own writing. >> >> You've used the CIA figures for total fossil fuels, which includes >> >> that used for transportation, heating, industrial processes etc. >> >> >> The Wikipedia page for Nuclear Power in France states; >> >> >> "In France, as of 2002[update], �lectricit� de France (EDF) � the >> >> country's main electricity generation and distribution company � >> >> manages the country's 58 nuclear power plants. As of 2008[update], >> >> these plants produce 90% of both EDF's and France's electrical power >> >> production (of which much is exported),[1] making EDF the world leader >> >> in production of nuclear power by percentage. In 2004, 425.8 TWh out >> >> of the country's total production of 540.6 TWh was from nuclear power >> >> (78.8%)." >> >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France >> >> >> Shame about all those wasted calculations you went through. >> >> Bill's post was authoritative. >> >> >Bill's post was specious, but thanks for checking. Hope you enjoyed >> >the herring! >> >> The fishy smell is all emanating from your direction. > > >Probably true--I _wish_ I had some herring, but had to settle for >roasted sardines mixed in with steamed brown rice last night, and I >enjoyed it very much! > >(Alas, the can's labeled "Product of Canada," and I fear it might've >been caught in non-nuclear powered boats, then transported thousands >of miles using more of the same fossil-fuel technology. The rice too, >for that matter.) > >Bravo for your heart-felt defense of Bill--he's surrounded, out of >ammo, and sure could use the help. I'm not defending Bill, I'm critiquing you. -- Regards Malcolm Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address
From: Malcolm Moore on 26 Nov 2009 19:33 On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:37:02 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:32:44 +1300) it happened Malcolm Moore ><abor1953needle(a)yahoodagger.co.nz> wrote in ><1strg5da6c1m0aq0dmpdiefet7u9vngch5(a)4ax.com>: > >>>That was all bogus, so I brought the thing back on point. >> >>Nice try, but as I commented before, comprehension is not your best >>skill. >> >>Jan introduced nuclear energy when he stated >> >>>> You really are beginning to sound like an idiot nut case. >>>> After all the case I made here for nuclear power. >> >>To which Bill replied >> >>>The French genenrate most of their electric power from nuclear >>>reactors and yet you claimed.... >> >>and then you lost the plot. > > >You, like Billy the Slowman, seem to be manipulting reality. >This is how the *real* conversation went: > >Me: >*>> Hey, if it was not for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy companies, >*>> there would be no media, no energy, and no way to spread the ideas origin= >*>ating from >*>> your overheated globe. > >Slowman: >*>BP and Shell both have the sense to acknowledge that anthropogenic >*>global warming is real and both have started diversifying into more >*>sustainable activities. >*> >*>You don't seem to have realised the burning fossil carbon isn't the > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >*>only way to generate energy. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Me again now: >To that I replied that I made the case for nuclear power several times here, nothing to do with climate. >Was just rectifying an other one of Billy Slowman's dreamstates, inaccuracies. That's correct, you introduced nuclear energy, to which Bill replied about the French proportion of nuclear electricity generation. The only thing you could regard as an inaccuracy in your highlighted quote is his claim "You don't seem to have realised", but I don't think that was intended to be taken literally. "burning fossil carbon isn't the only way to generate energy." is accurate, as was his claim about the French nuclear industry. I don't see why you claim I'm manipulating reality with regard to the quoted posts? As I mentioned in my reply to dagwhatever, you were the first to move the thread from the subject matter. That's fine, that happens on usenet. However, he then "fact checked" a claim that was never made, and you're supporting him. Weird. -- Regards Malcolm Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address
From: John Fields on 26 Nov 2009 20:44 On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:18:18 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 26, 7:35�pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:07:13 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in >> <6e3552a1-ae05-4a2c-835f-9f245f6d0...(a)m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> Without the [fossile] energy companies there would be no media, no energy= >> >, >> >> as your car does not run on electricity (yet). >> >> Without those machines, used to build cities, roads, transport goods, the= >> >re would be no civilisation >> >> and not even internet, and no printing material, no paper, some paper man= >> >ufacturers have their own power plants. >> >> >And if we keep on digging up fossil carbon and burning it, all these >> >nice things will go away again. >> >> >> Been there. >> >> Now wake up from your green dreams. >> >> >An ironic appeal, since it comes from someone who clearly doesn't know >> >what he is talking about. >> >> mm, why do you say that of everybody except your comic book scientists? > >I don't say it about everybody, but there are a number of people who >post here on subjects that they know very little about, and they quite >often post total nonsense. --- Like about being able to extract energy from a varying magnetic field surrounding a conductor by wrapping a solenoid around the conductor? JF
From: Malcolm Moore on 26 Nov 2009 21:04
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:47:17 +0000, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: >On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:03:48 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >wrote: > >>Bill Sloman wrote: >>> On Nov 24, 3:28 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >SNIP > >> >>> Sourcewatch gets its data from Exxon-Mobil's published accounts, which >>> provide rather better evidence than the kinds of conspiracy theories >>> with which Ravinghorde regales us. >>> >> >>Got a link the _proves_ that Exxon tries to fudge science here? Similar >>to those embarrassing email? > >Here's a link to more AGW, academic global warming: > >http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/#more-13215 > >/quote > >But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature >stations has just turned up a very different result: > >Gone is the relentless rising temperature trend, and instead there >appears to have been a much smaller growth in warming, consistent with >the warming up of the planet after the end of the Little Ice Age in >1850. > >/end quote For a bit of balance http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/ -- Regards Malcolm Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address |